18th March 2019, 04:30 AM | #31 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 653
|
Quote:
Regarding your bullet hole, since it has a corresponding mark on the scabbard, I'd say it was probably made on an unsuspecting / unprepared Moro. The weapon can be placed three ways, based on the pictures I've seen: tied at the waist, slung across one's chest, or tied near one's armpit. Last edited by xasterix; 18th March 2019 at 06:58 AM. |
|
20th March 2019, 01:10 AM | #32 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Wirral
Posts: 1,204
|
Quote:
|
|
20th March 2019, 01:43 AM | #33 | |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Centerville, Kansas
Posts: 2,196
|
Quote:
Best, Robert |
|
20th March 2019, 02:00 AM | #34 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,943
|
Quote:
Now thats some impressive forensics Robert!!! What you say seems very true, though I am far from being any expert on this kind of stuff. What I do know is that one of the biggest dilemmas in many campaigns and battles well into 19th century with guns was powder and the lack of quality that was usually an issue. Even in the Sudan, natives firing muskets had such lousy powder (not to mention poor training) that many British troopers were hit numerous times and not seriously injured. It does not seem far fetched that 'battle damage' might be so inflicted by creative sellers. |
|
20th March 2019, 02:15 AM | #35 | |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,291
|
Quote:
A jacketed round. |
|
20th March 2019, 07:03 AM | #36 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 427
|
Quote:
Well, it's a real bullet hole. It seems premature to charge it to a creative faker. There's little question that the actual hole is far from recent. The hole in the blade is the size of a .32 caliber bullet. The thickness of the metal in that part of the blade is about 0.065" to 0.075". (~1.6-1.8mm) Reasonably modern smokeless powder was in use at the time, not black powder, nor were muskets in use, at least on the US side of the issue. The .38 caliber revolver was the smallest handgun in use by the US Army at the ime; the Krag-Jorgenson rifle used a .30 caliber round, so if the barong was from the period, that might well have created the hole. (Good call, Rick!) I have no information at this time regarding firearms available on the Filipino side of the fray. Friendly fire is always a possibility. It might be well to consider what the Spanish troop were using, as well. The Mauser C96 pistol was in use from its initial release in 1896, and was in use by the First Philippine Republic's forces. The 7.63x25 round used in these pistols was certainly potent enough to inflict the level of damage seen in the barong. |
|
20th March 2019, 11:34 AM | #37 | |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Centerville, Kansas
Posts: 2,196
|
Quote:
Best, Robert |
|
20th March 2019, 04:27 PM | #38 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,943
|
This are excellent explanations Bob and Robert!! and as I noted, fantastic for than well versed firearms persons such as myself. I have always thought ballistics and forensics in these kinds of investigations amazing.
Bob, my comment was not intended to suggest the damage to your piece was not authentically received, just that such intentional 'distressing' has been known. I know I have an Ottoman yataghan which has damage near the bottom of the hilt just above the blade very similar, and the 'round' impression is quite clear but did not penetrate. I do not have it nor pictures unfortunately. I always thought it to be from a black powder firearm for those reasons. |
20th March 2019, 05:10 PM | #39 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 427
|
Quote:
It did cause me to recall a comic tale by Pat McManus; when he was a youth, surplus stores had plenty of leftover WWII stuff for sale. Once the owner of the store saw that the kids were more interested in buying things like helmets that had bullet holes in them, rather that the unscathed items, he took it upon himself to ventilate much of his inventory, to generate buyers' enthusiasm. Of course, when McManus told it, it was funny. I confess to having recalled that tale when bidding on the barong. I bought it anyway. There's a lot of the wonder of little kids in those of us who pursue these weapons, I suspect. |
|
20th March 2019, 06:18 PM | #40 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,943
|
Quote:
You hit it spot on Bob!!! Im still the same little kid that over 60 years ago watched swashbuckling pirate movies in awe. I never could have imagined that years later I would be handling and investigating the 'real deal' in actual weapons of those times..........even in the wrecks of the ships sailed by the pirates the movies were about ...the Blackbeard QAR and others. I still see the magic, but am more inquisitive, and always want to prove and secure whatever authenticity I can. Still, I do not discount items which may not carry the history I hoped for......but still have their own which is inherently present and deserves to be found as well. You have a discerning eye, and of course know these aspects as well, and that 'tale' is pretty good. I was one of the kids back in the 50s buying bayonets out of barrels in surplus stores, and remember the awe of 'battle' and 'blooded' items Heres one: my brother and I were out in a field one day, and found a 500 lb. apparent practice bomb (it had been a WWII air base less than a decade before) and were carrying it home. You can imagine the gasps as people looked out windows......uh.....and my mom!!!! |
|
|
|